On 09/06/04 09:26, Erik Moeller wrote:
While I'm not too happy with what he did, I do hope that it breathes some fresh life into the peer review discussion. The two core weaknesses of Wikimedia are people acting like assholes and people who don't know what they're talking about. If we systematically review and flag particular revisions of articles, we can create a space within which they do not exist. The validation system which is currently in CVS is only a rating system and doesn't really help in sorting out individual facts. I'm afraid that as a sole measure, it would contribute to the problem rather than solve it, as people grow eager to push articles through quality control and choose high ratings. These articles then attain a false notion of being authoritative. Similarly, controversial articles might never gain such status because some people don't like their content.
That would be the sort of thing that worried me about a rating system.
There's an interesting project going on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check Like the participants in this project, I've been thinking a bit about ways to mark-up individual facts in articles. Essentially, I want to take a text like The inscription is approximately 15 metres high by 25 metres wide, and 100 metres up a cliff from an ancient road connecting the capitals of Babylonia and Media (Babylon and Ecbatana). and mark up parts of it, like so: ??The inscription is approximately 15 metres high by 25 metres wide?? "??..??" means that this part of the article needs a source. Using CSS, all passages marked with "??" could be highlighted or not, depending on personal preferences. or like this: ^+The inscription is approximately 15 metres high by 25 metres wide [[Source:Behistun, p.84]] The part starting with "^+" would be referenced by the [[Source:]]. There could be different markup for different quality citations, e.g. ^- for a general encyclopedia or Google citation and ^= for a secondary source citation. The [[Source:]] namespace could be a magic template-type namespace that would load the bibliographical data from a page and insert it into a footnote, so we don't have to keep inserting the same information.
Oh, I *do* like that. Has this been experimented with? Has a protocol/ language guru sanity-checked these additions to MediaWiki syntax?
Of course these claims themselves could be faked. But together with stable-revision flagging and a consensus-based peer review process associated with every page, we could try to do for quality what we've done for quantity. If you wanted to, you could view only articles that have been reviewed and that are deemed 100% accurate.
This sounds absolutely wonderful :-)
- d.